ArticleCureus2026
Implantable Shock Absorber for Knee Osteoarthritis in Older Patients: Evidence From Two Clinical Studies.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common, chronic condition associated with significant pain and functional limitations. Patients who receive inadequate relief from conservative care and are not indicated for or are unwilling to undergo arthroplasty procedures have previously faced a significant treatment gap. To address this, we examined the implantable shock absorber (ISA) in a cohort of patients over 65 years old, at follow-up through five years. Methods Patients from two clinical studies (Atlas and Calypso) aged 65 and over during the five-year observation period were evaluated in this secondary analysis. Primary outcomes included pain and functional ability (measured via the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC)). Secondary outcomes included return-to-activities and adverse events. Outcomes were collected at baseline and at routine follow-up assessments for five years post ISA treatment. Follow-up measurements are compared with baseline at each interval. Results A total of 18 participants (12 females) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis (mean age at final follow-up: 68.0 years, mean body mass index (BMI): 28.1). Five years after treatment with ISA, pain scores had improved by 70% over baseline (mean of 17.1 (SD 19.3) vs. mean of 55.0 (SD 11.9); p<0.01), and function scores had improved by 64% (mean of 19.5 (SD 22.2) vs. mean of 53.4 (SD 17.0); p<0.01). Additionally, 13/14 (93%) of participants achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in pain, with an 11/14 (79%) incidence of functional improvement after five years. Patients reported limitations in the performance of desired physical activities at baseline; at five-year follow-up, 14/18 (77.8%) of participants were able to perform one activity with no or minimal limitations (p<0.0001 vs. baseline). One device malfunction was reported at 105 days post procedure. Three participants were elected for conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the study period. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that the ISA is a viable intervention for a selected population of patients with knee OA aged 65 and older. In this particular population, ISA was associated with significant long-term and sustained improvements in pain and function without compromising joint integrity, thus preserving options for future arthroplasty. For patients suffering in the treatment gap between the limited effectiveness of non-surgical approaches and the finality of arthroplasty, treatment with ISA offers a viable and effective proven option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.